Sri Ram Sharma

Sri Ram Sharma (1900-1976) was a professor, historian and author. He taught history, politics and public administration at the Punjab, Bombay and Poona Universities for many years. He was a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a member of the Indian Historical Records Commission. He was also the Director of the Institute of Public Administration, Chandigarh and Principal of the D.A.V.College. At the time of his death, he was editing a volume on the 'Mughal Culture and Institutions' for the Comprehensive History of India being Published by Indian History Congress, and had almost finished his portion of the work. Historian Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi called his work The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors an useful and objective study.

Quotes

Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors

Sharma Sri Ram. 1988. The Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Chapter I

• The Sultanate in India was based on the distinction between its Hindu and Muslim subjects. The Muslims formed the ruling caste. Naturally, the position of the Hindus differed in many respects from that of their Muslim neighbours. Ahkam-ul-Salatinya of the Almawardi lays down 6 compulsory stipulations for non- Muslims living under a Muslim ruler : (i) no criticism of the Quran, (ii) nor of the Prophet, (iii) nor of Islam, (iv) no marriage or adultery with Muslim woman, (v) no seduction from the true faith, and (vi) no help to the enemies of Islam. The non-compulsory demands include a special dress for non-Muslims, prohibition against religious propaganda among Muslims, the sounding of ‘Nagus’ so loudly as to reach Muslims ears, building houses higher in height than neighbouring Muslims houses, drinking in public and riding fine horses and the stipulation that they should bury their dead without openly chanting religious prayers. The building of new temples could be prohibited. The non-Muslims were permitted to have their cases decided by their own judges.

• As we have discussed below,’ the Jizya was a very heavy burden to the masses. But it was not its burden alone which was irksome. It was a badge of inferiority round the necks of the unfaithful reminding them constantly that they formed a subject people under an alien rule. The payment of the Jizya guaranteed the non- Muslim subjects a second class citizenship in the state. The non- Muslims were invariably prohibited from criticising the Quran, the Prophet and Islam. They could not marry a Muslim and forfeited the protection granted to them on committing adultery with a Muslim woman. Similarly they were not allowed to make converts. Old temples were not to be repaired nor new temples built. The ruler could prescribe a special dress for the non-Muslim and forbid them from riding good horses. Their religious ceremonies had to be performed in such a way that neither Muslim eyes nor ears could be profaned thereby. They could be prohibited from building houses higher than those of their Muslim neighbours.

• It is safe to hold, however, that Hindus were usually excluded from all high offices and were employed otherwise only when their employment was unavoidable.

• Under some Muslim rulers there were series of fierce persecutions. Forced conversion to Islam took place, sometimes in thousands, as it did under Sikandar Butshikan of Kashmir. Those who defied their fanatic persecutors were slain or had to seek safety in death. Jalal-ud-Din of Bengal (1414 to 1430), a convert himself, with a new convert’s zeal, forcibly converted hundreds of his Hindu subjects and persecuted the rest. Most of the Tughlaqs possessed a persecuting strain and Sikandar Lodi suffered from the same defect. It is consoling to find, however that very few Muslim rulers tried to play the part of fanatical persecutors.

• Sikandar Lodhi has been credited with following the law by some of his chronicler to such an extent that Nizam-ud- Din finds those accounts hard to believe. He is willing to assert however that he destroyed all Hindu temples, released offenders if they embraced Islam, admonished a Muslim officer showing consideration to a Hindu and prohibited pilgrimage to sacred places.

• But Firoz himself claims here that he built only 40 mosques in his entire reign. His language seems to emphasize that whereas his predecessors allowed temples to be built, he razed 40 temples to the ground and built mosques in their places rather than that he destroyed all temples and built mosques in their places.

Chapter II

• Babur inherited his religious policy from the Lodis. Sikandar Lodi’s fanaticism must have been still remembered by some of the officials who continued to serve when Babur came into power. Babur was not a great administrator. He was content to govern India in the orthodox fashion. He projected no great changes in the government of the country except the design of a royal road from Agra to Kabul. But the Hindus, he met with, occupied no humble position. Rana Sanga, a Hindu, led a host wherein even Muslim armies were present under disaffected Pa than chiefs. It was Babur’s success at the battle of Khanava against Rana Sanga that enabled him to remain in India as her ruler. These two factors seem to have governed his religious policy. Babur, the born fighter against heavy odds, knew he was at a great crisis in his life on the eve of his battle against Rana Sanga. In order to conform strictly to the Muslim law he absolved Muslims from paying stamp duties thus confining the tax to Hindus alone. He thus not only continued, but increased, the distinction between his Hindu and Muslim subjects in the matter of their financial burdens. One of his officers, Hindu Beg, is said to have converted a Hindu temple at Sambhal into a mosque. His Sadr, Shaikh Zain, demolished many Hindu temples at Ghanderi when he occupied it. By Babur’s orders, Mir Baqi destroyed the temple at Ayudhya commemorating Rama’s birth place and built a mosque in its place in 1528-29. He destroyed Jain idols at Urva near Gwalior. There is no reason to believe that he did anything to relax the harshness of the religious policy which he found prevailing.

• It is wrong to say that Sher Shah did not destroy a temple or break an image. His conquest and occupation of Jodhpur was followed by the conversion of the Hindu temple in the fort into a mosque. The Thrlkh-i-DnUdl ascribes his attack on Maldev, Raja of Jodhpur, partly to his religious bigotry and a desire to convert the temples of the Hindus into mosques. His treachery towards Puran Mall was not, as Qanungo tries to assert, the result of a fanatic religious leader forcing his opinions upon an unwilling king. It had been planned by Sher Shah beforehand, discussed by him with his officers and was deliberately done to earn religious merit by exterminating this arch-infidel. Sher Shah said prayers of thanks after this ‘religious’ deed. No amount of mere rhetoric can enable us to get over the accounts of the expedition, especially when we find Sher Shah, who got ill on the eve of the battle, inviting his officers and confiding to them that ever since his accession he had been anxious, in the cause of his religion, to defeat Puran Mall. All accounts give this expedition a religious significance which no argument can destroy. Sher Shah was only a product of his own age as far as his religious policy was concerned. Like Feroz Shah before him, he combined administrative zeal with religious intolerance. His place in history does not depend upon his initiating a policy of religious toleration or neutrality. He had no more to do with founding a united nation in India, which is yet in the making, than any other successful ruler before him.

Chapter III

• When his reign began, it gave no signs of the opening of a new era in the religious policy of the Mughal emperors. Almost his first act of state was to earn religious merit and the title of Ghazi (slayer of infidels) by striking at the disarmed and captive Hemu after his defeat at the second battle of Panipat. Akbar was not asked to whet his sword on Hemu because he was a rebel, but because he was a Hindu. He was to perform not the task of the official executioner, but that of a victorious soldier of Islam. Abu’l Fazl would have us believe that the boy Akbar was wiser than his years and refused to strike a defenceless enemy. But most other writers are agreed that he struck at Hemu and earned the title of the Ghazi thereby.

• This was not an isolated instance of popular feelings. The spirit of the age sanctioned such and even worse practices. Mubarak, a scholar of no mean repute, was persecuted even though he was a Muslim, for holding rather unorthodox views. Mir Habshi was executed for the offence of being a Shi'a. Khizar Khan met his death on a charge of blasphemy there were others as well who shared a similar fate. As BadayunI tells us, it was customary 'to search out and kill heretics’, let alone non-Muslims.’ The popular attitude towards heretics and non-Muslims can be well understood by several incidents of Akbar’s reign itself. In 1569-70 (977 a.h.) Mirza Muqlm and Mir Ya'qub were executed for their religious opinions. Hemu’s father, when captured, was offered his life if he turned Muslim, Even in 1588 when the murderer of a Shi'a was executed, the people of Lahore showed their religious sentiments by desecrating the tomb of his victim. Feelings towards the Hindus could not be restrained — ‘Abdun Nabi executed a Brahman for blasphemy on the complaint of a Qazl. Husain Khan, the governor of Lahore who died in 1575-76 (983 a.h.), made his government famous by ordering that the Hindus should stick patches of different colours on their shoulders, or at the edge of their sleeves, so that no Muslim might be put to the indignity of showing them honour by mistake. Nor did he allow Hindus to saddle their horses but insisted that they use packsaddles when riding. The Akbar Nama, the An-i-Akbarl and Badayuni are all agreed that prior to 1593, some Hindus had been converted to Islam forcibly. When Todar Mai was appointed Finance Minister, Akbar had to defend this appointment of a Hindu to such a high office by reminding his Muslim critics that they were all utilizing the services of Hindu accountants in their own households.

• When Man Singh was appointed the leader of the expedition against Maharana Pratap, the appointment caused some resentment in the Muslim military circles. Badayuni accompanied Man Singh in this expedition. On the battle-field he failed to distinguish between the Imperial Rajputs and those led by Maharana Pratap. He consulted a Muslim friend nearby who told him that he need not worry. He should shoot indiscriminately ; whosoever would be killed would mean one Rajput less and hence Islam would gain.

• In 1581 some Portuguese captives at Surat were offered their lives if they would turn Muslims. When Kangra was invaded in 1572-73 (980 a.h.) even though Birbal accompanied the expedition as a joint commander, the umbrella of the goddess was riddled with arrows, 200 cows were killed and Muslim soldiers threw their shoes full of blood at the walls and the doors of the temple. Salim, at one time, intended demolishing some of the Hindu temples at Banaras but desisted therefrom on Man Singh’s intervention. A Mughal officer, Bayazid, converted a Hindu temple of Banaras into a Muslim school. Some Jain idols are said to have been broken in Gujarat, though Akbar later on sent a Farman to the governor asking him to protect the Jain temples from further injury. A cartload of idols was removed from the temples by a Mughal officer and was yielded up to a Jain on payment of money some time after 1578.

Chapter IV

• At Jahangir’s accession, the Muslim theologians, who had not been pleased very much with Akbar’s attempt at secularizing the State, seem to have tried to win back their lost influence, Mulla Shah Ahmad, one of the greatest religious leaders of the age, wrote to various court dignitaries exhorting them to get this state of things altered in the very beginning of the reign because otherwise it would be difficult to accomplish anything later on. His efforts seem to have been successful to some extent. Jahangir gave orders to Shaikh Farid to submit to him names of four scholars who should see that nothing that was against the Shari'at should take place. Here was the rub. Mulla Ahmad protested to Shaikh Farid that this would not work. No four scholars would ever agree. He suggested therefore that only one scholar be appointed for the purpose. Nothing however seems to have come out of this suggestion. The orthodox seem to have greater faith in Jahangir than in his father. He was said to be less favourably inclined to the Hindus, and, the Muslims in general were asked to make persistent efforts to wean him away from Hindu customs and ceremonies.

• Under Jahangir converts to Islam, according to Jesuit authorities, were given daily allowances... Further, when Jahangir discovered in his fifteenth year that the Hindus at Rajauri converted and married Muslim girls of the locality, he gave orders that this practice be put a stop to and the guilty be punished.

• Jahangir continued, with some exceptions, his father’s practice of allowing non-Muslims to build public places of worship. His friend, Bir Singh Bundela, built a magnificent temple at Mathura, which was now once again rising into prominence as the sacred city of the Vaishnavas. He raised another magnificent place of public worship in his own State as well. More than seventy new temples were built in Banaras alone towards the end of his reign. They were, however, not yet complete when Jahangir died. He allowed the Christian Fathers to open a church at Ahrnedabad in 1620 and another at Hugh. At Lahore and Agra public cemeteries for the Christians were allowed to be set up. But when he made war on the Hindus and the Christians these ; considerations were sometimes given up. When Mewar was invaded, many temples were demolished by the invading Mughal army...
  Sometimes his fury would break out even without the aggravating cause of war. When he visited Ajmer in the eighth year, the temple of the Boar god, Varsha, was destroyed and the idols were broken. Probably these instances made a contemporary poet of his court sing his praises as the great Muslim emperor who converted temples into mosques. These exceptions apart, Jahangir usually followed the path shown by his father. It is interesting to note that some of the Hindu shrines of Kangra and Mathura continued to attract a large number of Muslim pilgrims besides their Hindu votaries.

• Now Man Singh’s prophecy seems to have been reported to Jahangir. He could, however, take no action against him as Rai Singh had been pardoned and Man Singh was living under his protection at Bikaner. In the twelfth year, however, when Jahangir visited Gujarat where there were many Jains, he decided to embark upon their persecution. They were accused of having built temples and other buildings which were reported to be centres of disturbance, Their religious leaders were accused of immoral practices (probably of going about naked). They were generally believed to be a troublesome class of Hindus. Jahangir first of all summoned Man Singh to the court. Afraid of meeting a mere ignominious fate he took poison on his way from Bikaner to the Emperor. Jahangir issued orders thereupon for the expulsion of the Jains from the imperial territories. These orders do not seem to have applied to the territory of the Rajput Rajas where the Jains were driven to seek protection.
  Jahangir here seems to have been prompted by religious rather than political motives. Unlike Guru Arjun, Man Singh had been left alone for several years after his alleged act of treason. All Jains were punished irrespective of their political proclivities. Still further there was a section of the Jains which did not even acknowledge Man Singh as their leader. They were also included in the order of expulsion. Dr Beni Prasad is wrong in stating that the order of expulsion was confined to one sect alone.

• Whatever Jahangir’s personal shortcomings might have been, he was, to a majority of his subjects, a good Muslim. Only a Muslim could have desecrated the temple at Kangra, destroyed idols and temples at Pushkar and in Mewar, upheld the true law by preventing the conversion of Qutub and his companion to Hinduism, stopped the conversion of Muslim girls by marriage to Hindus in Rajauri, ordered a simple translation of the Qur'an and supported the whole structure of a Muslim state.

• In short, Jahangir ordinarily continued Akbar’s toleration. He experimented in the simultaneous maintenance of several religions by the State. ... With all this, Jahangir sometimes acted as protector of the true faith rather than as the king of a vast majority of non-Muslims. Departures, however slight, from Akbar’s wide outlook had begun.

Chapter V

• The years that followed his defeat and reconciliation with Jahangir did not bring the father and the son much closer together. Shah Jahan did not, however, raise the standard of ‘Islam in danger' against his father, and when he succeeded him in 1627, he had no religious commitments. But unlike his father and grandfather, he married no Hindu princess, and thus that mellowing influence was lacking in his harem.

• So far as the Public Services were concerned Shah Jahan started by issuing rather a tall order. It was decreed that only Muslims were to be recruited to the public services. But this order does not seem to have been enforced.

• Shah Jahan did not reimpose the Jizya but tried to make money out of the religious convictions of the Hindus in other ways. The pilgrimage tax was revived. It was a heavy burden, and an obstacle in the way of the Hindus who wanted to fulfil their religious obligations.

• Shah Jahan changed the spirit of religious toleration that had characterised the Mughal government so far in several other ways as well . To begin with, the emperor forbade the completion of certain temples that had been started during his predecessor’s reign. Repairs to old temples were prohibited and the building of new temples was forbidden. Complaints against the Hindus on the frontiers of the Punjab had been received. It was alleged they had rebuilt seventy temples using the material of the mosques ; which had been in their turn built utilizing the material of the temples which had originally stood there. All these temples were ordered to be destroyed and mosques built in their place. Shah Jahan now embarked on a campaign of complete destruction of the new temples of the Hindus. Three temples were destroyed in Gujarat, seventy-two temples in Banaras and its neighbourhood, and probably four temples elsewhere in the province of Allahabad, Some temples in Kashmir were also sacrificed to the religious fury of the emperor. The Hindu temple of Ichchhabal was destroyed and converted into a mosque. This betokened a rather serious fit of religious frenzy which Akbar’s reign seemed to have made impossible. The materials of some of the Hindu temples were used for building mosques.

• In the ninth year a magnificent temple built by Bir Singh Bundela at Urchha was destroyed during the course of military ; operations against Jujuhar Singh Bundela. Several other temples suffered the same fate or were converted into mosques. When the ' fort of Khata Kheri was conquered and taken from its Bhil ruler Bhaglrath in 1632, Muslim rites were performed there just as had happened in the temple of Kangra on its conquest by Jahangir. The fort of Dhamuni under Jujuhar Singh was similarly desecrated in A.D. 1644-45 (1045 a.h.). Earlier, in a.d. 1630-31 (1040 a.h.) when Abdal, the Hindu chief of Hargaon in the province of Allahabad, rebelled, most of the temples in the state were either demolished or converted into mosques. Idols were burnt. Prince Aurangzeb while viceroy of Gujarat (February, 1645 to January, 1647) was responsible for the demolition of several temples. In Ahmedabad and elsewhere in Gujarat and Maharashtra many temples were destroyed, among them being the temple of Khandai Rai at Satara, and the temple of Ghintaman close to Sarashpur. Probably after Aurangzeb’s departure in 1647 many of these temples were again taken possession of by the Hindus.

• Shah Jahan thus reverted to the practice of systematically desecrating the religious shrines of rebel chiefs and enemies. He also tried to enforce the Muslim injunction against new place of worship being built by non-believers. But it seems that his fury did not last long. Though in general terms some of the chroniclers of the reign remember the emperor as the destroyer of temples, no more specific cases find mention in the later part of his reign. Probably due to Dara’s increasing influence we find Shah Jahan reversing this policy. The prince presented a stone railing to the temple of Kesho Rai at Mathura. A letter written during the year a.d. 1643-44 (1053 a.h.) to Jai Singh, Raja of Jaipur, conceded to him full liberty to appoint the presiding priest at the temple of Brindaban built by Man Singh. Man Singh’s mother had died in Bengal and by a letter dated August, 1639, Shah Jahan granted two hundred digkas of land to be attached to her mausoleum in order to ensure its upkeep. The restoration of their temples to the Hindus of Gujarat, however, took place after 1647.

• Shah Jahan also stopped the prevailing practice of allowing the Hindus and the Christians to make converts to their religion.... In the case of the Hindus, however, it was otherwise. They had been actually absorbing a number of Muslims by conversion to Hinduism. In the sixth year of his reign when Shah Jahan was returning from Kashmir through Jammu, he discovered, as Jahangir had discovered before him, that the Hindus of Bhadauri and Bhimbar accepted daughters of. Muslim parents and converted them to their own faith. These women were cremated at their death according to Hindu rites. Jahangir had tried to stop this practice but to no avail. Shah Jahan not only issued order making such marriages unlawful henceforward, but ordered that these converted Muslim girls be taken away from their husbands, who in turn were to be fined. They could escape the fine if they accepted Islam. So widespread was this practice of converting Muslim girls to Hinduism that these orders discovered more than 4,000 such women.

• In his tenth year Shah Jahan discovered that his orders had not completely stopped this source of conversion to Hinduism. Dalpat, a Hindu of Sirhind, had converted a Muslim girl, Zinab, given her the Hindu name, Ganga, and brought up their children as Hindus. He had also converted one Muslim boy and six Muslim girls (his own) to Hinduism. The emperor was now exasperated by this persistence and defiance of his orders. To put a stop to this practice and warn all future transgressors of the law, Dalpat’s wife and children were taken away from him. He was sentenced to death by dismemberment with the option that he could save himself by becoming a Muslim. Dalpat, however, was made of the stuff of which martyrs are made and he flatly refused the offer. He was cruelly done to death.

• Another method of conversion to Hinduism was also stopped. Though Akbar had discontinued the practice of making slaves of prisoners of war, it seems to have been too deep-rooted to disappear so easily. It had now revived. These slaves were publicly sold to bidders or retained by the soldiers. Shsh Jahan now issued an order that Muslim prisoners of war were not to be sold to the Hindus as slaves. Hindu soldiers were also forbidden from enslaving Muslims.

• When, the Sikh Guru, Hargobind, took up his residence at Kiratpur in the Punjab, he succeeded in converting a large number of Muslims some time before 1645. In the words of Dabistana-Maznhib, not a Muslim was left between the hills near Kiratpur and the frontiers of Tibet and Khotan. The Mughals conquered Kiratpur in 1645 and it is possible they might have made some efforts at reconverting the people. But the Muslim chroniclers are silent about the fate of any such attempt.

• But under Shah Jahan, apostasy from Islam had again become a capital crime. His order made conversions from among the Hindus easier and gave the state full power for keeping Muslims true to their faith. It is no wonder that this led to forcible conversion in times of war. When Shuja was appointed governor of Kabul, his assumption of office was accompanied by a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond the Indus. Shankar was the ruler of these tribes. During the war, sixteen sons and dependants of Hath were converted by force. The sword of Islam further yielded a crop of 5,000 new converts. Hindu temples were converted into mosques. Anyone showing signs of reverting to the faith of his forefathers was executed. The rebellion of JuJuhSr Singh yielded a rich crop of Muslim converts, mostly minors. His young son Durga and his grandson Durjan Sal were both converted to become Imam Qpli and ‘Ali Quli. Udai Bhan, his eldest son, when captured preferred death to Islam. Another son who was a minor was however converted. Most of the women had burnt themselves to death but such as were captured — probably slave girls or maids — were converted and distributed among Muslim mansabdars. When Pratap Ujjainya rebelled in the tenth year, one of his women was captured, converted to Islam and married to a grandson of Firoz Jang. The conquest of Beglana was followed by the conversion of Naharji’s son and successor who now became Daulatmand. Nasrat Jang converted a Brahman boy to Islam who, however, seemed to have resented it and killed his ‘benefactor’ while he lay asleep.

• As Shah Jahan made apostasy criminal, he took similar measures to enforce the Muslim penal code in connexion with other religious crimes as well. Blasphemy was once again made a criminal offence. A Hindu who was alleged to have behaved disrespectfully towards the Quran was executed. Ghhaila, a Brahman and provincial qSnungo of Berar, lost his head because he was similarly accused of disrespectful language towards the Prophet. While Aurangzeb was Viceroy of Gujarat, Raju, a Sayyid holding heretic views, was first expelled from Ahmedabad and subsequently killed on his opposing the imperial officers sent in order to accomplish and hasten his departure.

• To sum up, Shah Jahan was a more orthodox king than his two predecessors. During the sixth to tenth years of his reign he embarked upon the active career of a persecuting king. Several orders were issued during these years for the purpose of achieving his end. New temples were destroyed, conversions were stopped, several Hindus were persecuted for religious reasons, and probably the pilgrimage tax was reimposed. Soon however his religious zeal seems to have spent itself. Shah Jahan’s ardour as a great proselytizing king cooled down when he discovered in the heir-apparent, and his deputy in many state affairs, a religious toleration equalling that of his grandfather Akbar. Of course the discontinuance of certain court ceremonies which smacked of Hindu practices was permanent.

• It is not wholly true to say that Shah Jahan’s reign was a prelude to what followed under Aurangzeb. Much of what his successor did constituted a vote of censure on Shah Jahan for failing to do, in its entirety, what the Muslim law and tradition demanded of a Muslim king. It is true that the five years from the sixth to the tenth of his reign gave the Hindus a foretaste of what might happen if the Mughal throne happened to be filled by an orthodox king who insisted on following in their entirety the contemporary Muslim practices. Shah Jahan — despite the praises showered on him by his court poets and annalists — was never consistently or for long a persecutor. Towards the end of his reign, we actually find him restraining the religious zeal of Aurangzeb and overriding him in many important matters. It must, however, be admitted that Akbar’s ideal of a comprehensive state’, was gradually being lost sight of, although only partially.

Chapter VI

• When Sarmad, a famous Sufi, came to Delhi from Hyderabad towards the end of Shah Jahan’s reign, DSra Shikoh had sought his company and paid him many marks of respect. But when Aurangzeb came to the throne, the things took a different turn. Sarmad cried out ‘whoever gained the knowledge of His secret became able to annihilate distance. The Mulla says that the Prophet ascended to the heavens, Sarmad declares that the heavens came down to the Prophet’. The Mullas now found their opportunity. But Sarmad did not deny the ascension of the Prophet. Aurangzeb sent the chief Qazi to Sarmad to question him about his nudity. Sarmad explained it by declaring that the devil had the upper hand. His answer was so worded as to offend the theo- logian by a pun on his name. But this in itself was not enough. Sarmad was summoned to the royal court and asked to repeat the whole of the Muslim creed . Sarmad went so far as to declare that there is no God. When asked to repeat the rest he said his realization went no further. He could now be easily condemned . When the executioner brought forth his axe for his hateful task, Sarmad welcomed it crying ‘I know You in whatever form You care to come’ and embraced death like a martyr. His contemporaries associated many miracles with his death and his tomb is still venerated as that of a great saint

Chapter VII

• Aurangzeb seemed to have followed a threefold policy with regard to the high Hindu mansabdars. There was a general reduction in the number of Hindus holding high mansabs. Hindus were not appointed to high executive office, nor called upon to discharge responsible military duties. Usually the heads of various hereditary houses were not given the same status as had been held by their predecessors. The petty officials could expect to fare no better. Various orders were passed to break the monopoly of the Hindus in the routine jobs in the revenue department and in the clerical establishment. There is a general order in the Kalimat-i-Ta'yyibat forbidding the employment of the Hindus, Then there is the order preserved in the Maasir-i-'Alamgiri and Muntakhih-id-Luhah forbidding the employment of the Hindus in the revenue department and as personal assistants to various executive heads. An attempt was made to enforce these orders.

• Thus Aurangzeb deliberately worsened the position of the Hindus in the public services. Higher offices were closed to them ; the Muslims were openly preferred. A wholesale dismissal of the Hindus from the revenue department was attempted without much success.

• He valiantly tried to replace Hindu public servants by Muslims wherever he could. [Newsletter dated July 27, 1703 records] “Twenty Hindu musketeers of the royal guards were dismissed to give place to Muslims on…“
  • Religious policy of Aurangzeb The Religious Policy Of The Mughal Emperors by Sri Ram Sharma

• Aurangzeb contributed to the widening of this gulf between the Hindus and the Muslims further by ordering on 19 November, 1702 that “no Hindu in the army was to employ Muslim servants…“
  • [Newsletter dated November 19, 1702, notes that Aurangzeb ordered] Religious policy of Aurangzeb The Religious Policy Of The Mughal Emperors by Sri Ram Sharma

Chapter VIII

• In 1661 Aurangzeb in his zeal to uphold the law of Islam sent orders to his Viceroy of Bihar, Daud Khan, to conquer Palamau. In the military operations that followed many temples were destroyed signalizing the victories of the Mughal arms. Towards the end of the same year when Mir Jumla made a war on the Raja of Kuch Bihar, the Mughals destroyed many temples during the course of, their operations. Idols were broken and some temples were converted into mosques.
  • Palamau (Bihar), Koch Bihar (Bengal). citing: Alamgirnamah of Mirza Muhammad Kazim 659-97, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 129, 168. [Source: Alamgir-Nama by Muhammad Kazim cited by Sri Ram Sharma [1] and by Balmukund Virottam[2], Kafi Khan II, 136-52

• Soon, however, Aurangzeb began to act even without the provocation of military necessity. The temple of Somnath was destroyed early in his reign.* This seems to have been one of the results of the order sent to his officials in Gujarat dated 20 November, 1665, Aurangzeb gave directions for the destruction of such temples in Gujarat as had at one time been destroyed or desecrated by him as the prince viceroy of Gujarat but had later on been resumed by the Hindus. It is difficult to understand why these temples in Gujarat were singled out for attack. Aurangzeb probably felt that he was thus initiating no new policy, but simply carrying out Shah Jahan ’s original policy which had been later reversed.
  • citing Ali Ahmad Khan: Mirat-i-Ahmadi

• About the same time Aurangzeb’s attention turned towards Mathura. Here many beautiful temples had been raised by the piety of the Hindu Rajas and rich men, particularly during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir. Aurangzeb picked out for attack what looked like a work of repairs in the famous temple of Keshav Rai. Its railing that had once been made of wood had long before become too weak to serve any useful purpose. Under Shah Jahan, Dara Shukoh had built at his own cost a railing of stone. Being a work of repairs as well as a new structure, it became an emblem of a Muslim’s fall from grace. On 14 October, 1666, its removal by the fojdar of Mathura was reported to the imperial court. Some time after the death of Jai Singh, Aurangzeb is alleged to have demolished the Lalta temple near Delhi.
  • citing News letter 14 Oct 1666, and Manucci II 154.

• Soon after the order was issued, reports of the destruction of temples from all over the empire began to arrive. A royal messenger was sent to demolish the temple of Malarina (now in Jaipur but probably then included in the imperial district of Ajmer) in May, 1669. In August, 1669, the temple of Visvanath at Banaras was demolished. The presiding priest of the temple was just in time to remove the idols from the temple and to throw them into a neighbouring well which thus became a centre of pious interest ever after. The temple of Gopi Nath in Banaras was also destroyed about the same time, He is alleged to have tried to demolish the Shaiva temple of Jangamwadi in Banaras. The tradition has it that his attempt failed because of the opposition which the heavenly hosts of Shiva threatened to put up if he persisted in his designs.
  • citing Maasir-i-Alamgiri

• Then came the turn of the temple of Keshav Rai at Mathura built at a cost of Rs. 33,00,000 by Rao Bir Singh Bundela in the reign of Jahangir. It had excited the envy of many Muslims, before Aurangzeb, who however had not Aurangzeb ’s opportunities and power. It had been built after the style of the famous temple at Bindraban which Man Singh had built at a cost of Rs, 5,00,000. But Bir Singh had improved upon his model and spent more than six times as much as Man Singh had lavished on his shrine at Bindraban. It had become a centre of pilgrimage for the whole of India. The idols, studded with precious stones and adorned with gold work, were all taken to Agra and there buried under the steps of Jahanara’s mosque. The temple was levelled to the ground and a mosque was ordered to be built on the site to mark the acquisition of religious merit by the emperor.
  • citing Mirat-ul-Khayyal, Travels of Abdul Latif, Manucci II, 116, Maasir-i-Alamgiri

• The priests of the temple of Govardhan founded by the Valabhacarya sought safety in flight. The idols were removed and the priests softly stole out in the night. Imperial territories offered no place of safe asylum either to the god or his votaries. After an adventurous journey, they at last reached Jodhpur. Maharaja Jaswant Singh was away on imperial errands. His subordinates in the state did not feel strong enough to house the god who might have soon excited the wrath of the Mughal emperor. Damodar Lai, the head of the priesthood in charge of the temple, sent Gopinath to Maharaja Raj Singh to beg for a place to be able to serve his religion in peace. The Sassodis prince exterided his welcome to Damodar Lai. The party left Ghampasani on 5 December, 1671, and was right royally received by MaharSna Raj Singh on the frontiers of his state. It was decided to house the god at Sihar and with due religious ceremony, the god was installed on 10 March, 1672. Mewar thus became the centre of Vaisnavism in India. The tiny village of Sihar has how grown into an important town which is named after the god, is now known as Nathadwara. At Kankroli (in Udaipur State) another Vaisnava idol of Krsna similarly brought down from Bindraban had been housed a little earlier. It forms pother, though less famous, shrine of Vaiinavism in India today. Thanks to Aurangzeb^s religious zeal, Udaipur state became a new Bindraban to the devotees of the Bhakti cult.
  • citing Ojha, History of Udaipur, I, 35

• This lull was broken in 1679, when Aurangzeb’s fury broke out with a vengeance. Maharsja Jaswant Singh died on 10 December, 1678, When Aurangzeb heard of his death towards the end of the month, he waited patiently for some time and then on 9 March, 1679, orders were given for the sequestration of the state to the crown. About this time DorSb Khan had been sent to Khandela where he demolished various temples in the neighbourhood on 8 March, 1679. This was followed by the despatch of Khan-i- Jahan to Jodhpur. He destroyed many temples there early in 1679 and as an evidence of his ‘meritorious conduct’ he brought cart- loads of idols to Delhi. These were placed in public places in the court and the Friday Mosque. Aurangzeb was not yet at war with Jodhpur which had really been converted into a crownland property. The destruction of its temples therefore was not an act of warfare. It was an announcement that the state was no longer being governed by a Hindu Raja but had now passed into imperial hands.
  • citing News Letter 8 March 1679, Maasir-i-Alamgiri 175

• Aurangzeb’s dealings with the Rathors of Jodhpur resulted in the Rajput War. Udaipur offered unique opportunities for harassing the Mughals. The Maharana fled to his mountains leaving Udaipur to pass into the hands of the Mughals, The royal temple in front of the palace was destroyed. When Aurangzeb visited Udai Sagar on 24 January, 1680, he ordered that the three temples that were standing on the edge of the lake be demolished. On 29 January, it was reported that the number of temples destroyed in and around Udaipur (of course including the four already mentioned) was 172. Aurangzeb’s visit to Chitor on 22 February, 1680, was followed by the destruction of 63 temples there. Thus in the state of Udaipur alone 235 temples were reported to have been destroyed. These probably did not include the temple at Somesvara in Western Mewar.
  • citing Maasir-i-Alamgiri 175-89, Adab-i-Alamgiri Letter Nos 732, 744

• But Aurangzeb did not confine his iconoclastic activities to the warring states alone. Orders were given to demolish Hindu temples in the friendly state of Jaipur as well. An imperial agent, Abu Tarab, was sent for this purpose and he set about his task with a thoroughness that soon produced a panic. Most of the temples he was able to destroy easily, but there was some opposition in one temple. Certain Rajputs assumed positions there wherefrom they could easily deal with the masons who were sent to demolish the temple. The imperial agents had soon to beat a retreat. The officer in charge of the party thereupon complained to the Raja’s officials- A fojdar was asked to accompany the imperial agent to insure that the imperial officials were not molested in their task of pulling down the temple. There was a skirmish between the soldiers accompanying the fojdar and the Rajputs in the temple. Not before all the Rajputs had been killed was it possible for the imperial agent to destroy the temple. Abu Tarab reached the court on 10 August, 1680, and reported that he had demolished as many as sixty-six temples in Amber.** A letter from one Bhagwan Das to Raja Ram Singh written probably about this time tells us of the destruction of Karor (?) temple in Amber by Dalair, an imperial messenger.
  • citing Maasir-i-Alamgiri, Jaipur Records

• 'When the war with the Rajputs was over, Aurangzeb decided to leave for the Deccan. His march seems to have been marked with the destruction to many temples on the way. On 21 May, 1681, the superintendent of the labourers was ordered to destroy all the temples on the route. Some time after, one Manawar Beg, a mason, with thirty artisans was sent to raze the temples of the Rajputs. On 27 September, 1681, the emperor issued orders for the destruction of the temples at Lakheri. On 13 October, 1681, when he left Jaipur, Qpmar-ud-Din suggested that though all the temples in the neighbourhood had been closed, they should be destroyed. Aurangzeb however was content with closing them down and ordered that they be allowed to stand as there were no Muslims living in that area.
  • Akhbarat, cited in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962. p. 136-139. News Letter, 21 May 1681, cited by Prof. Sri Ram Sharma in THE RELIGIOUS POLICY OF THE MUGHAL EMPERORS, p.145 and News Letter, 27 September 1681, cited by Prof. Sri Ram Sharma in THE RELIGIOUS POLICY OF THE MUGHAL EMPERORS, p.145 . citing Jaipur Records Letters of 18 Sep 1681, News Letter 21 May 1681, 27 Sep 1681, 13 Oct 1681

• Naturally when Golkanda was conquered, the emperor justified its conquest by ordering the destruction of the temples in Hydera- bad and their conversion into mosques in 1687. The fall and capture of Bijapur was similarly solemnized though here the destruction of temples seems to have been delayed for several years, probably till 1698.
  • citing Kafi Khan II

• About this time, on 14 April, 1692, orders were issued to the provincial governor and the district fojdar to demolish the temples at Rasulpur. In 1693, the Haitheswar temple at Bar Nagar in Gujarat was demolished.
  • citing News Letter 14 April 1692, Mirat-i-Ahmadi I.

• A Jaipur letter dated 14 February, 1690, reported that in Kanwar in Jaipur, where the temples had perhaps already been demolished, a religious fair was held and idols were publicly worshipped. This happened three times in the course of a year. The censor complained to the emperor so that suitable action might be taken against those responsible for it.
  • citing Jaipur Records XVI, 58

• Ghulam Muhammed, a news-writer, accompanying the expedition against the Jats reported on 28 May, 1690, to the emperor that Mohan Singh, one of the Rajput chiefs accompanying Bishan Singh, had set up a temple in the house of Sardul Singh. In December, 1690, a complaint was made to the emperor that the temples in Marwar that had once been converted into places of residence by the Muslim Jagirdar had again been opened for public worship.
  • citing Jaipur Records

• Sankar, a messenger, was sent to demolish a temple near Sheogaon. He came back after pulling it down on 20 November, 1693. In. April, 1694, it was reported to the emperor that the imperial censor had tried to prevent public idol worship in Jaisinghpura near Aurangabad. The Vairagi priests of the temple were arrested but were soon rescued by the Rajputs.
  • News Letter 20 Nov 1693, 3 April 1699

• Bijai Singh and several other Hindus were reported to be carrying on public worship of idols in a temple in the neighbourhood of Ajmer. On 23 June, 1694, the governor of Ajmer was ordered to destroy the temple and stop the public celebration of idol worship there. In a.d. 1696-97 (1108 a.h.) orders were issued for the destruction of the major temples at Sorath in Gujarat.
  • citing News Letter 23 June 1694, Mirat i Ahmadi. Mirat-i-Ahmadi by Ali Muhammad Khan, in : Sharma, Sri Ram, Religious Policy of the Mughal Emperors, Bombay, 1962., p. 137-138

• Muhammad Shah, censor attached to the army, reported that many soldiers went to worship idols in the temple at Purandhar. On 2 January, 1705, orders were given that the temple be desecrated and demolished. The temple of Wakenkhera in the fort was demolished on 2 March, 1705.
  • citing News Letter 2 Jan 1705, 2 Mar 1705

• The Jum’a Masjid at Irach (in Bundelkhand) is assigned to Aurangzeb’s reign. It is said to be built of materials taken from a Hindu temple. While passing through Udaipur in Bundelkhand (about 1681) Aurangzeb is said to have ordered the Saiva temple there to be demolished. The orders were however modified and the temple was converted into a mosque. The temples at Gayaspur near Bhilsa and the temple of Khaundai Rao in Gujarat were also destroyed.
  • citing ASI Report, Kalimat

• In a small village in the sarkar of Sirhind, a Sikh temple was demolished and converted into a mosque. An imam was appointed who was subsequently killed. Several other Sikh temples were also destroyed.
  • Sirhind (Punjab) Kalimat-i-Tayyibat, Kafi Khan.

• In Orissa some time before 1670 the temple at Kedarpur was demolished and converted into a mosque.
  • citing Hasan

• The private house of a Rajput, Devi Singh, in the pargana of Alup, which was used as a temple, was converted into a mosque.
  • citing Jaipur Records

• Aurangzeb urged the appointment of an officer on special duty in order to destroy the Hindu temples in Maharashtra. He discovered that it was not possible for the labourers accompanying the royal army on the march to destroy all the temples during the short time at their disposal with the limited number of men available to them..
  • citing Kalimat Aurangzeb (Ram Puri), 34

• He stopped public worship at the Hindu temple of Dwarka.
  • citing Mirat-i-Ahmadi

• Aurangzeb destroyed the temples at Mayapur (Hard war) and Ayodhya. ‘All of them are thronged ' with worshippers, even those that are destroyed are all venerated by the Hindus and visited by the offering of alms.
  • citing Manucci.

• 'The newswriter of Ranthambore reported the destruction of a temple in Parganah Bhagwant Garh. Gaj Singh Gor had repaired the temple and made some additions thereto.'...'Royal orders for the destruction of temples in Malpura Toda were received and the officers were assigned for this work.'
  • citing Waqi'at-i-Sarkar Ranthambore, MS. Akhbarat

• The Mughals, however, had captured a prize in the two sons of the Guru [Guru Goving Singh] who had got separated from him when he had escaped from the Mughals at Kot Nahang on the Sirsa. They were asked to embrace Islam and at their natural refusal were executed at Sirhind. Their martyrdom was very much utilized by Banda in his campaign against the Muslims in the Punjab.

• Besides the measures Aurangzeb took for the purpose of reducing the number of the Hindus in the public services, many other restrictions were imposed on them. The pilgrimage tax was reimposed. Bernier tells us that at the time of an eclipse of the Sun three lakhs of rupees were paid to the state. Rupa Brahman offered to pay to the state Rs. 1 ,000 in a lump sum on behalf of the pilgrims visiting Pushkar (near Ajmer) in order to save them the indignity inflicted on them during the collection. This was accepted. The celebration of some religious festivals was stopped. The Holi ceased to be celebrated by imperial orders issued on 20 November, 1665. It was not a police order alone, promulgated for the purpose of keeping peace and order during the Holi days as Sir Jadu Nath Sarkar has suggested. Raja Bhim of Banera and Kishen Singh while serving in South India in 1692, made arrangements for the celebration of Holi. The censor tried to stop the celebration, but as Bhim and Kishen Singh were officers of high status, the censor’s attempts were of no use. He reported the matter to the emperor by whose order the celebrations were stopped. In 1704, 200 soldiers were placed at the disposal of the censor for the purpose of preventing the celebration of the Holi. Of course the emperor was not always able to stop the celebrations. In 1693 there was a riot in Agra during the celebrations and many persons were wounded. The celebration of Dipavali also was prohibited in 1665. In 1703 Hindus were not allowed to burn their dead on the banks of the river Sabarmati in Ahmedabad. An earlier order issued in 1696 had imposed similar restrictions with regard to the Jamuna in Delhi.

• Fireworks of all kinds were prohibited. It was laid down in the Faiawa-i-Alamgiri that the Hindus should not be allowed to look like Muslims. In furtherance of this it was ordered in 1694 that, except Rajputs and Marathas, no Hindus were to be allowed to ride an ‘Iraqi or Turani horse, an elephant, nor to use a palanquin. A Hindu disobeying this order in 1 694 in Multan had his horse and saddle confiscated. The deshmukh of Ahmadnagar was discovered in 1703 riding a palanquin and at once the imperial orders were enforced against him. It seems, thus, that the exception in favour of the Marathas was not always respected. In 1702 orders were given that the Muslim engravers be not allowed to engrave the names of Hindu gods and goddesses on the seals of the Hindus’ rings. The Maasir-i-Alamgiri assigns to the year 1693-94 the order prohibiting the carrying of arms in public by the Hindus.

Chapter IX

• By 1679 Aurangzeb had advanced so far on the path of Puritanism that it was possible for him to order the levy of the Jizya on non-Muslims on the representation of Anayat Khan, Diwan-i- Khalsa. It was to be paid by all and sundry in Muslim India and Rajput States, by officials, and non-officials, Brahmans and non-Brahmans, clerks and lighters. Aurangzeb’s imposition differed ’ from all earlier impositions in that it was laid on the persons living in feudatory states as well. The imposition was followed by a public protest by the Hindus at the capital and in the suburbs. They waited till Friday and when the emperor rode out on an elephant to say his Friday prayers in the Friday Mosque, they : made a demonstration and blocked the path of the royal elephant. For some time Aurangzeb was non-plussed. As all efforts at securing a path for him failed, after a delay of an hour or so, he ordered the march to be resumed trampling underfoot many of the protestants, Abu’l Fazl Mamurl, who himself witnessed the incident, tells us that this continued for several days and many lost their lives fighting against the imposition.

Chapter X

• A letter written by the President and the Council of Surat on 22 January, 1668, suggests a rather ingenious method of making converts. The factors state that trade had been largely obstructed by the fierce bigotry of Aurangzeb and his persecution of the Hindus. If a Muhammadan had no desire to discharge his debt to the bania and if the bania demanded the payment of the same, the Muhammadan would lodge a complaint to the Kazi that he had called the prophet names or spoken contumaciously of their religion, produce a false witness or two, and the poor man was forced to circumcision and made to embrace Islam. Several persons had been thus served to the great terror of all. This king not at all minding anything of his kingdom gives himself wholly upon the converting or rather perverting the banias.’ Forcible conversion of the Hindus at Surat, at last drove them to plans of migrating from Surat to Bombay. The English, however, turned down their request. The Hindus then closed their shops at Surat and eight thousand of them marched on to Broach to the emperor who was supposed to be there. What became of their appeal we do not know.

• Popular Hindu and Sikh tradition ascribes mass conversions by force to Aurangzeb’s reign. Of course it has heightened the colours in the picture. But the examples quoted above prove that the emperor made it a part of his imperial duty to encourage conversions, personally admit converts to Islam and grant favours to the initiated. Of the converts it must be said that very few, if any, seem to have changed their faith for religious reasons. Desire to escape civic disabilities or worse, and to acquire material benefits formed the motive force in most cases. It may be argued that the religion which these converts shook off so easily must have been sitting very lightly on them. But the history of the world contains a few martyrs and a host of trimmers. Hindu India of Aurangzeb’s reign was no exception. The wonder is not that so many were converted but that the vast majority of the Hindus kept their faith amidst so many temptations and such persecution.